MULCHAND RUGHALAL BAHETI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Original accused Mulchand Rughalal Baheti by this Misc. Criminal Application under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, has moved this Court inter alia praying for quashing and setting aside the proceedings initiated against him by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 17th Court, Ahmedabad, pursuant to the complaint filed before it by the opponent Nobatram Chaudhari, for the alleged offences punishable under Sec. 420 of I. P. Code, which came to be registered as Criminal Case No. 1166 of 1985.

(2.) When the matter was called out, the learned Advocate for the petitioner was absent. Despite the fact that Chopdar was sent, he was not available. Under the circumstances, with the assistance of learned A.P.P., Mr. S. T. Mehta, this Court has heard and decided this matter. This Court was required to do so because having once obtained the stay and thereby forestalled the proceeding, before the trial Court, right from the year 1985, the petitioner cannot be permitted to delay the hearing of this Misc. Criminal Application at whims and convenience of his learned Advocate, taking the Court proceedings as if on joy-ride. Under such circumstances, this Court is not expected to be at the mercy of the learned Advocate to hear and decide the case as and when he makes himself available. The cases particularly wherein interim stay is obtained, it is the bounden duty of the concerned learned Advocate to be at the back and call of the Court for hearing and deciding the case whenever his matter is called out or if he has some genuine difficulty then to make some alternative arrangement for final hearing and/or to seek adjournment on some such ground which is appealable to the Court. In criminal cases the time being the essence, it is the most important factor to be reconsidered, as everyday delay was bound to weaken, rather further weaken and ultimately destroy the prosecution case for the simple reason that in the course of time the evidence may get lost and/ or suffer serious credibility set-back on any count. This in a way is quite unjust and prejudicial to the aggrieved complainant, rather in a given case antethesis of the justice.

(3.) Turning to the facts of the case, in substance, it is the case of the complainant that he is a Manager of M/s. Raghuvir Prasad Vijaykumar and other firms, while the accused Mulchand Rughalal Baheti is a cloth merchant doing his business in Revdi Bazar, Ahmedabad. Further according to the complainant, he was knowing the accused since last many years because of business relations. On one night, the accused visited his house saying that as he was near by his house, he accordingly thought to just visit and meet him. During the course of the conversation accused stated that he was having 2-3 firms in Ahmedabad. He further said to the complainant that because he (complainant) was having business outside Ahmedabad, many a times he might not be getting prompt payment, and accordingly, instead of having business relations outside he should have such relations with him. Further, according to the complainant, on hearing this talk he was swayed to trust him and accordingly asked the accused to come to his shop. On the next day, the accused went to the shop of the complainant and purchased cloth in all totalling about Rs. 37,038.78 p. which despite repeated demands till the date of filing of the complaint was not paid to him. On the basis of these allegations, he filed a complaint before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No. 17, Ahmedabad, who in his turn issued bailable warrant against the petitioner-accused herein giving rise to the present Misc. Criminal Application.